I had to say I found this part to be borderline incompetence, coming from a professional lobbyist/spokesperson:
It would have been much smarter to say something like:
“We commend the ACLU for their diligence in protecting our civil liberties”
But it’s a nice use of a gun metaphor, he gets points for that.
Nah, that’d be too much to expect. Too bad–he could’ve taken the opportunity to show some class and build a bridge instead of acting like a one-trick pony asshole.
As a Conservative, I’m very grateful for the ACLU. They do a fantastic job almost all of the time for standing up for the individual rights and civil liberties of the average person, which is something Conservatism cherishes very much. The ACLU’s purposeful blind spot towards the 2nd Amendment, however, has moved from just being an annoying quirk to an embarrassing, seemingly politically-driven inconsistency in their politics and ideology.
I can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, but it always has been an annoying blemish on an otherwise excellent record for the ACLU.
I will take that as you agreeing with me 
My point is that I expect more from a paid professional. He just damaged what he is paid to protect. Not saying I would fire him, but I’d definitely send him on a weekend course.
I’m guessing that the people who matter in the NRA disagree with you.
My own viewpoint pretty much parallels the ACLU’s and 44% of the Supreme Court. You have an incredibly well-funded organization that stands up for what you perceive to be Second Amendment rights. You have the ACLU to stand up for the 9 1/2 Amendments that the NRA doesn’t. What’s wrong with that?
The ACLU deals with more than just the 1st Amendment. They oppose the death penalty, support affirmative action, etc. There’s a lot for the right to object to.
Personally, I don’t care if they actually act in support of the 2nd or not. I just want them to take the right position. Their current “we’re not taking a position” pro-gun control schtick is pathetic.
To expand on what **BobLibDem **said, are you embarrassed by the NRA’s inaction on defending all the other Amendments? Granted, the NRA’s charter isn’t about anything other than the 2nd, but I would think that the good work that the ACLU does on the other Amendments would *far *outweigh their relative inaction on the 2nd, especially since the NRA exists.
I seem to recall that the ACLU used to specifically reference the NRA in that stance. To paraphrase: Our efforts are needed less there because someone (the NRA) already has that covered.
No cite since I’ll have long thrown it away, but I’m pretty sure I saw that attitude referenced specifically on a flyer. Maybe that was a Florida ACLU thing?
Not to speak for my colleague Una Persson, but the issue is not the work done or undone – it’s the position they take. The NRA’s entire charter involves firearms; I don’t look for them to take a position on interrogations after arrest or the racial composition of juries. The ACLU’s raison d’etre is alleged to be civil rights, as a whole, of which firearm ownership definitely is one. I don’t ask that they devote work to that cause; they may prioritize their work any way they please. I just ask that they acknowledge that the Second Amendment describes a civil right, rather than remaining officially agnostic on the point.
Your claim that ownership of firearms is a civil right is somewhat specious. It’s a specific and ultimately rather unimportant property right.
It’s not self-determination, or expression, or faith; it’s analogous to owning a car.
You could argue that self-defense is a civil right, but firearms are a useful self-defense tool, not a necessary component.
I like the way you put that. Well done.
Really?
And you discover this, I see, from The Big Book of Civil Rights, no doubt.
Hmmm. Seems Amazon doesn’t stock it.
So you won’t even unambiguously state that self defense is a civil right? “You could argue…” is nothing but weasel words. Yes or no - is it, or isn’t it?
And this is one reason why sometimes (but certainly not always) the pro and anti-gun members of this board have a huge gulf between their positions. In thread after thread there is this heel-digging stubborn refusal by some to just come out and say, unambiguously, “hell yes, you have a basic human and civil right to effective self defense.” (because ineffective self defense is, by definition, ineffective, duh. And an example of ineffective self defense is a 105-pound woman trying to defend herself against a 250-pound rapist using her “martial arts” she learned at a community college, her car keys, or faith in Jesus) Further, Heller stated that the 2nd Amendment was primarily dealing with a right to self-defense, not just firearms. Even the NRA themselves were fond of stating: “the 2nd Amendment isn’t about duck hunting.” I’m a strong 2nd Amendment supporter who is not entirely fond of hunting as a sport, for one example.
I mean, is it actually in question that the right to effective self-defense - just leave the statement at that, ignore the firearms issue - is a basic human and civil right? I know this is the bizzarro world of the SDMB, but really? Really?
As far as my other point, Bricker captured my thoughts very well and succinctly, thank you for that.
I’ll wager if the ACLU said they believed the Supreme Court was in error on Roe v. Wade most liberal and Democratic members of this board would be castigating them for it on a weekly basis. It all depends upon whose oxen are being gored.
Bricker, you’re adding chapters to an imaginary book. Why can’t I edit them back out?
Reading a bit too much into my post there. Bricker didn’t say it was, so I offered that he could. I’m not saying it isn’t, just that he didn’t mention it. Calm down.
Actually, I am on record multiple times here that the Supreme Court was wrong, and that Roe was bad law, no matter how correct it was as a public policy decision.
I would agree that most liberal/Democratic board members would respond as you say, however.
More than welcome to. (Although I’ll thank you to think of your own title, since The Big Book of Civil Rights is my imaginary book).
But when it comes to actually picking a reference source we both agree is an authority on the subject, clearly neither your untitled book, nor my fetchingly entitled tome, is of much use.
Which is kinda my point.
There is one source that is highly authoritative on the issue, and it has spoken. Twice, now.
OK, let’s break this down to a simple question: is it, or isn’t it, a basic human and civil right?
I concur - I believe that there should be a right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution, and I believe that the public policy re: abortion is satisfactory, but that I’d really like to see both of those spelled out as an Amendment to the existing Constitution, not magically created.
Oooh… is it John Rawls?
Self-defense is a basic human and civil right.
Thank you, my good man, for the direct response.